I think towards the end of this book Scott seems to be repeating himself quite a bit by covering content which he has already talked about. Alot of the text i read in this chapter seemd to take directly from previous chapters. However, with that being said i didnt agree entirely with some of the things he said in this chapter. Firstly Scott seems to suggest that text and pictures seem to come together during the periods and art movements such as dada, surrealism, cubism and expressionism, however if im understanding him right, i believe that it happened much much earlier and can be traced back earlier in examples such as the middle ages in europe where text became art as well as complimenting it. This picture i found from a website on medieval scripting shows what i mean.
Scott describes this process of turning text into art piece as a "montage" but most designers would call this typography, so im not sure what to think. I would like to know where he is getting his definations from.
Scott mentions that new styles of art is continually judged by the standards of previous art forms. I think this is a good point but could further be elaborated by saying that theres two aspects to this judgement. Firstly visual taste and secondly the amount of effort and skill that is needed to create art.
Personally i dont like modern art at all. In most cases its very boring and lacks pleasant colours. I also believe throwing paint at a canvas, or drawing random lines requires the skill of a two year old and alot of drugs. To me, true artists are the likes of da vinci, michelangelo, picaso and monet.
No comments:
Post a Comment